The way broadcasters judge shows is too harsh and specific

[gtb321]

I've just lost a TV deal due to poor ratings, the broadcaster wanted an 82 and I've had a few 80s and 81s in the last few months. However, I've been with them for over a year, and prior to this rut I'm in, I was greatly exceeding expectations most shows being in the high 80s or low 90s. Yet because of a few bad shows, they instantly cut the deal. I know you get emails but I don't think it's enough.

 

Instead of just instantly cutting, they should come to you directly after a few bad shows and ask if you want a new timeslot to lower the expected rating. If you accept, you get a slightly worse slot but keep the deal. If you decline, then they expect you to hit the expected rating or else they cut the deal.

 

Also, I don't think one deal failing should impact negotiations for the rest of the broadcasters. The terms of each deal is different so just because one channel cuts a deal shouldn't every other channel won't negotiate.

[Adam Ryland]

You can negotiate to a lesser timeslot whenever you want and get a lower minimum requirement. I don't see any advantage to having the broadcaster come to you to offer something you can already do yourself.

 

If you chose to gamble on not doing that and stick with your existing time slot then I don't think you can legitimately grumble at then getting caught out. That is the nature of the gamble you took.

[LloydCross]

You can negotiate to a lesser timeslot whenever you want and get a lower minimum requirement. I don't see any advantage to having the broadcaster come to you to offer something you can already do yourself.

 

If you chose to gamble on not doing that and stick with your existing time slot then I don't think you can legitimately grumble at then getting caught out. That is the nature of the gamble you took.

 

Maybe the e-mail the OP mentioned could point you towards that option. I've never done a big enough TV deal to have ratings be a concern so maybe it already does.

[gtb321]

How to massively improve Broadcasters

 

I previously made a post about how I felt the current way broadcasters judge shows was too specific, which I stand by, but I feel like I've got something that can solve the problem an make broadcasters feel more real and interesting.`

 

Currently in game, you have a minimum show quality you have to hit and if you fall below it too many times, your show gets cut from a TV deal, even if prior to that your show was massively exceeding expectations. This to me doesn't make sense. If you were at home watch TV, how would you be able to tell the difference between a show that was rated 82 compared to a show rated 80? You can't. But the AI can, which to me makes little sense from a realism standpoint. Instead, I suggest it be a range rather than just number.

 

For example, instead of a minimum show rating of 80, it would be range from 85 to 75. This is the quality of show the broadcaster expects of you meaning if you fall below, they won't be happy, but if you exceed expectations, they will be impressed. This is something missing from the game currently. Broadcasters don't care how good the shows are, they only care about bad ones. This means players won't be punished for a few bad shows, especially if they have run tonnes of great shows in the past. This is where I suggest implementing a new feature called something like Broadcaster Happiness or Broadcaster Satisfaction.

 

Essentially it would be a horizontal line graph that goes up and down with each show. If the show falls within the range expected, confidence remains the same, if the show is bad, confidence falls and if the show exceeds expectations, confidence goes up. I think having a visual for how happy our broadcaster are with our booking is important as it gives a clear indication to player on how they are performing. Also it gives an incentive to run better shows as broadcaster confidence in you improves with higher quality shows.

 

Secondly, I think there needs to be more broadcaster communication from the broadcaster end. If your shows are falling below the expected requirements and a broadcaster wants to cancel, they should send you a final warning email that makes their intentions clear to the player, otherwise if you lose track of warnings or come back to a save after while, you don't know when they plan to cut the deal, it's often out of the blue and never clear.

[cajr87]

<p>What about making broadcasters judge you over two things so one can off set the other. </p><p> </p><p>

Lets say you have a range which you fall out of for a number of shows, maybe they can judge you on your average over the previous 3-6 months before the slump. if your range is supposed to be between 85-75 and you are falling short but your average is still within that range, maybe they say "because of your previous good period of shows we are willing to give you extra time to improve. you have X weeks/months to improve your ratings to an acceptable consistant level."</p><p> </p><p>

The loss of key people to injury or by being poached could cause ratings to drop if your roster is reliant on a small number of guys and gives you extra time to build up others and build new stories</p><p> </p><p>

Also, maybe each broadcaster could have a tolerance level. Some will be more sympathetic and be willing to give you more time whereas others may be much more ruthless and give you no time. Their tolerance for you can increase the longer you keep putting good shows on their platform, so one month of poorer shows is overshadowed by two years of never falling below the minimum requirement for example</p>

[Sprout1883]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cajr87" data-cite="cajr87" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="53084" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What about making broadcasters judge you over two things so one can off set the other. <p> </p><p> Lets say you have a range which you fall out of for a number of shows, maybe they can judge you on your average over the previous 3-6 months before the slump. if your range is supposed to be between 85-75 and you are falling short but your average is still within that range, maybe they say "because of your previous good period of shows we are willing to give you extra time to improve. you have X weeks/months to improve your ratings to an acceptable consistant level."</p><p> </p><p> The loss of key people to injury or by being poached could cause ratings to drop if your roster is reliant on a small number of guys and gives you extra time to build up others and build new stories</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Also, maybe each broadcaster could have a tolerance level. Some will be more sympathetic and be willing to give you more time whereas others may be much more ruthless and give you no time. Their tolerance for you can increase the longer you keep putting good shows on their platform, so one month of poorer shows is overshadowed by two years of never falling below the minimum requirement for example</strong></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm fairly new to TEW so not sure I a lot of the mechanics, but the highlighted bit seems the easiest if it isn't already a thing. Broadcasters already have a built in stat to say how pro or anti-wrestling they are. so a broadcaster who is doesn't like wrestling much will kick you off after less poor shows than a broadcaster who is more pro pro-wrestling</p>